Time for the US to leave NATO?

[Clark Griswold]

22 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Well, looks like they're starting to search for a replacement to the Tornado. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-studying-manned-successor-for-german-tornados-426634/ . The image in that article is like a bad mashup of a raptor and a PAK-FA.

They're shutting down the Tornado training over at Holloman AFB by 2019 as well. Those jets are supposedly moving back to the Fatherland, but I've heard competing reports that they're going to start retiring airframes due to "costs". We'll see.

Definitely agree on being more assertive. 

Had not heard of this, kinda surprised they just don't go to a single multi-role fighter for logistical savings but have at it, there should be some options out there to keep LM on it's toes.

 

[SurelySerious]

Tangentially related; addresses liberalism, conservative views, and the origins of America projecting its ideals.

"Is 'Classical Liberalism' Conservative?"https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-classical-liberalism-conservative-1507931462

[SurelySerious]

Regarding geopolitics (and doesn't fit military/aviation book): World Order by Kissinger.

[Clark Griswold]

On 10/19/2017 at 7:23 PM, SurelySerious said:

Regarding geopolitics (and doesn't fit military/aviation book): World Order by Kissinger.

Good article 

On the subject of NATO & should the US leave it, I think it is more now of reforming it to a European led, America ensures with a reduced European footprint...

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2016-12-08/the-us-should-redesign-nato-and-let-europe-lead-its-defense

From the article:

• The U.S. should let Europeans know that within a short period of time they will have to assume responsibility for their own defense and for the leadership of NATO. After that, America will continue to be a part of NATO, not as its leader, but as one of NATO's 28 members. At that point, all U.S. troops should leave Europe, and American bases returned to the Europeans. How long a time should the US give the Europeans to make this transition? 2025 sounds like an appropriate date, being the 80th anniversary of the victorious end of World War II.
• To ensure Europeans understand that America is serious about the transition, the U.S. should, as quickly as possible, turn over the position of NATO's military head or Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European general, and then systematically replace Americans in key leadership positions in the alliance with Europeans.
• During this transition, the U.S. must be unambiguous about its commitment to the collective defense clause (Article 5) of the alliance's treaty. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the United States will always meet its commitment to NATO.

Overall decent points, I probably would leave some US military presence on the continent and UK (if still wanted) and look to reduce to around 1/5 our current footprint.  US Army in Poland, Finland and the Baltics for direct ground deterrence,  USAF in bases to support rapid logistical build up if required and MOBs quickly established (Rota, Moron, Aviano, etc..) and US Navy in Greece/Italy for deterrence of Black Sea based Russian Naval fleets.

We could demonstrate capability and commitment with biennial rapid deployments with airpower demonstrations, still cheaper than permanent bases and keeps our friends on notice...  

Start a redeployment with a 5 year timeline, that's enough time for them to rise to the occasion or navel gaze, their choice.

[Clark Griswold]

Relight on thread.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-still-defending-europe-24957

and

https://www.defensenews.com/flashpoints/2018/05/29/poland-offers-up-to-2-billion-for-a-permanent-us-military-presence/

Good articles and worth the read.

NATO 2.0:

Reduce our forward presence by half (at least).  Redeploy from Germany to Poland.  Do not expand NATO to new members.  Walk away from existing alliance and be wiling to from new one with Central Europe if no reform is seen with 2 years of upcoming summit.

[di1630]

If the US walks away from NATO, it collapses leaving Europe on its own and the Europeans couldn’t unite to fight off a band of migrants let alone Russia. You think I’m joking but it’s a sad sad state of utter disorganization and incompetence throughout our European allies armed forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Lawman]

Good article 
On the subject of NATO & should the US leave it, I think it is more now of reforming it to a European led, America ensures with a reduced European footprint...
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2016-12-08/the-us-should-redesign-nato-and-let-europe-lead-its-defense
From the article:

• The U.S. should let Europeans know that within a short period of time they will have to assume responsibility for their own defense and for the leadership of NATO. After that, America will continue to be a part of NATO, not as its leader, but as one of NATO's 28 members. At that point, all U.S. troops should leave Europe, and American bases returned to the Europeans. How long a time should the US give the Europeans to make this transition? 2025 sounds like an appropriate date, being the 80th anniversary of the victorious end of World War II.
• To ensure Europeans understand that America is serious about the transition, the U.S. should, as quickly as possible, turn over the position of NATO's military head or Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European general, and then systematically replace Americans in key leadership positions in the alliance with Europeans.
• During this transition, the U.S. must be unambiguous about its commitment to the collective defense clause (Article 5) of the alliance's treaty. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the United States will always meet its commitment to NATO.

Overall decent points, I probably would leave some US military presence on the continent and UK (if still wanted) and look to reduce to around 1/5 our current footprint.  US Army in Poland, Finland and the Baltics for direct ground deterrence,  USAF in bases to support rapid logistical build up if required and MOBs quickly established (Rota, Moron, Aviano, etc..) and US Navy in Greece/Italy for deterrence of Black Sea based Russian Naval fleets.

We could demonstrate capability and commitment with biennial rapid deployments with airpower demonstrations, still cheaper than permanent bases and keeps our friends on notice...  

Start a redeployment with a 5 year timeline, that's enough time for them to rise to the occasion or navel gaze, their choice.

There is absolutely nothing cheaper about deploying non permanent units.

The Army found that out the hard way.

What’s more in addition to the financial cost there is the poorly measured personnel cost that can only be tracked via reenlistment rates. Divisions deployed to Europe as part of Atlantic Resolve have the lowest rates in the service. Units that go to Kuwait have higher ones, because we managed to make Germany suck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daynightindicator]

If the US walks away from NATO, it collapses leaving Europe on its own and the Europeans couldn’t unite to fight off a band of migrants let alone Russia. You think I’m joking but it’s a sad sad state of utter disorganization and incompetence throughout our European allies armed forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Agree 100%. NATO is our bulwark. We need to defend the wall. Our disorganization in the international community is terrible but we need to get ready to defend our alliance.

[di1630]

If the US walks away from NATO, it collapses leaving Europe on its own and the Europeans couldn’t unite to fight off a band of migrants let alone Russia. You think I’m joking but it’s a sad sad state of utter disorganization and incompetence throughout our European allies armed forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[matmacwc]

3 hours ago, di1630 said:

If the US walks away from NATO, it collapses leaving Europe on its own and the Europeans couldn’t unite to fight off a band of migrants let alone Russia. You think I’m joking but it’s a sad sad state of utter disorganization and incompetence throughout our European allies armed forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I know Di personally, he is in a position to know this and it’s scary as hell.

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, Lawman said:

There is absolutely nothing cheaper about deploying non permanent units.

The Army found that out the hard way.

What’s more in addition to the financial cost there is the poorly measured personnel cost that can only be tracked via reenlistment rates. Divisions deployed to Europe as part of Atlantic Resolve have the lowest rates in the service. Units that go to Kuwait have higher ones, because we managed to make Germany suck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

21 hours ago, di1630 said:

If the US walks away from NATO, it collapses leaving Europe on its own and the Europeans couldn’t unite to fight off a band of migrants let alone Russia. You think I’m joking but it’s a sad sad state of utter disorganization and incompetence throughout our European allies armed forces.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

17 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I know Di personally, he is in a position to know this and it’s scary as hell.

 

All true points, cost to stand up TDY units vs. permanently based units and I would give the Euros some chance to pull it together and build a credible deterrence, but I have to ask if they won't defend themselves when they have the capability but choose not to for various reasons (economic, cultural, etc..) does that obligate us to defend them?

If your neighbor refuses to cut his grass, are you obligated to cut it for him?  Yes it keeps the neighborhood up but keeps you on the hook for responsibilities that are not yours.  Imperfect analogy but there comes a time when people must stand or fall on their own, if they are not willing to secure and defend that which is theirs when they have the capability then they are not worthy of sovereignty.

Why defend them when they trade with our enemies (Iran, Russia and China) in ways the undercut efforts we expensively and with considerable risk perform to ensure a rules based order vice an only might makes right world?  You may say those are two different things but as all blood and treasure that is paid by the United States ultimately comes from one source, the tax-paying citizenry, they are all interconnected.

You can not truly be our friend and look for ways to undercut major security efforts we undertake not to defend our homeland but to defend a reasonable world order against aggressive repressive dictatorships.

https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/european-alternate-payment-system-to-circumvent-us-iran-sanctions-nearly-ready/

What kind of "allies" are they?  Fair weather friends for the most part it seems.  Some are not as bad as others in their pack but this and other actions are not acceptable. 

They want the security of friendship with a superpower but no significant costs in terms of restricting their foreign and economic policies.

Alliances are not meant to last forever, history moves on and it is time for us to move on from the NATO alliance.  There are still nations in Europe that I think we should assist in defense and deterrence (Poland, Baltic states, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, etc...) of their territorial sovereignty only but not major continental European nations.  They can and should stand or fall or their own.

I'm a 40 something and the world has always had NATO and a firm trans-Atlantic alliance for defense between the US and Europe, but just because something has existed for a long time doesn't mean that it should continue forever. 

In 25 years, will we still be the de facto defense force for Europe?  When will it end?  What if they just disband their militaries entirely?  Are we still liable for their defense then? 

I am fully aware it would be a political/economic shock MUCH larger than Brexit if the US announced its withdrawal from NATO and ideally (IMHO) proposed a new strictly defensive alliance with Central & Eastern European nations but it needs to happen.

What we have now is unfair, unwise, unsustainable and unnecessary.

[magnetfreezer]

33 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

 

 

All true points, cost to stand up TDY units vs. permanently based units and I would give the Euros some chance to pull it together and build a credible deterrence, but I have to ask if they won't defend themselves when they have the capability but choose not to for various reasons (economic, cultural, etc..) does that obligate us to defend them?

If your neighbor refuses to cut his grass, are you obligated to cut it for him?  Yes it keeps the neighborhood up but keeps you on the hook for responsibilities that are not yours.  Imperfect analogy but there comes a time when people must stand or fall on their own, if they are not willing to secure and defend that which is theirs when they have the capability then they are not worthy of sovereignty.

Why defend them when they trade with our enemies (Iran, Russia and China) in ways the undercut efforts we expensively and with considerable risk perform to ensure a rules based order vice an only might makes right world?  You may say those are two different things but as all blood and treasure that is paid by the United States ultimately comes from one source, the tax-paying citizenry, they are all interconnected.

You can not truly be our friend and look for ways to undercut major security efforts we undertake not to defend our homeland but to defend a reasonable world order against aggressive repressive dictatorships.

https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/european-alternate-payment-system-to-circumvent-us-iran-sanctions-nearly-ready/

What kind of "allies" are they?  Fair weather friends for the most part it seems.  Some are not as bad as others in their pack but this and other actions are not acceptable. 

They want the security of friendship with a superpower but no significant costs in terms of restricting their foreign and economic policies.

Alliances are not meant to last forever, history moves on and it is time for us to move on from the NATO alliance.  There are still nations in Europe that I think we should assist in defense and deterrence (Poland, Baltic states, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, etc...) of their territorial sovereignty only but not major continental European nations.  They can and should stand or fall or their own.

I'm a 40 something and the world has always had NATO and a firm trans-Atlantic alliance for defense between the US and Europe, but just because something has existed for a long time doesn't mean that it should continue forever. 

In 25 years, will we still be the de facto defense force for Europe?  When will it end?  What if they just disband their militaries entirely?  Are we still liable for their defense then? 

I am fully aware it would be a political/economic shock MUCH larger than Brexit if the US announced its withdrawal from NATO and ideally (IMHO) proposed a new strictly defensive alliance with Central & Eastern European nations but it needs to happen.

What we have now is unfair, unwise, unsustainable and unnecessary.

Agree. However, our interests are served by 1. Not having Russia control everything up to the Chunnel and 2. Access to basing for refueling / transload / other stuff to access CENTCOM and AFRICOM. The difficulty is maintaining 1 and 2 with a pull out and the advancement of Russia.

[matmacwc]

3 hours ago, magnetfreezer said:

Agree. However, our interests are served by 1. Not having Russia control everything up to the Chunnel and 2. Access to basing for refueling / transload / other stuff to access CENTCOM and AFRICOM. The difficulty is maintaining 1 and 2 with a pull out and the advancement of Russia.

And NATO knows this.

[Clark Griswold]

Agree. However, our interests are served by 1. Not having Russia control everything up to the Chunnel and 2. Access to basing for refueling / transload / other stuff to access CENTCOM and AFRICOM. The difficulty is maintaining 1 and 2 with a pull out and the advancement of Russia.

Yeah, not having Russia bully the Euros is in our interests but they will not change unless the circumstances they find themselves in change, namely operationally significant amounts of US forces stationed in their countries that provide deterrence thus allowing atrophy of not just their military forces but also the cultural will to use them.

The evidence is there IMO that it (oversized direct American provided European military deterrence post Cold War ending) led to an erosion of national will of several of the major Continental European powers, I would liken it to trust fund kids and the often corrosive effect of not being either in danger from irresponsible actions or required to pay/work for the resources you enjoy.
Leaving NATO is not desireable but appears to be necessary, they don’t change no matter if a conservative, liberal or nationalist administration prods them, something else has to be tried.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk